BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    condominium expert witness Anaheim California concrete tilt-up expert witness Anaheim California casino resort expert witness Anaheim California condominiums expert witness Anaheim California custom homes expert witness Anaheim California structural steel construction expert witness Anaheim California custom home expert witness Anaheim California townhome construction expert witness Anaheim California retail construction expert witness Anaheim California Medical building expert witness Anaheim California hospital construction expert witness Anaheim California mid-rise construction expert witness Anaheim California institutional building expert witness Anaheim California industrial building expert witness Anaheim California production housing expert witness Anaheim California landscaping construction expert witness Anaheim California multi family housing expert witness Anaheim California Subterranean parking expert witness Anaheim California low-income housing expert witness Anaheim California parking structure expert witness Anaheim California office building expert witness Anaheim California housing expert witness Anaheim California
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Construction Expert Witness Builders Information
    Anaheim, California

    California Builders Right To Repair Current Law Summary:

    Current Law Summary: SB800 (codified as Civil Code §§895, et seq) is the most far-reaching, complex law regulating construction defect litigation, right to repair, warranty obligations and maintenance requirements transference in the country. In essence, to afford protection against frivolous lawsuits, builders shall do all the following:A homeowner is obligated to follow all reasonable maintenance obligations and schedules communicated in writing to the homeowner by the builder and product manufacturers, as well as commonly accepted maintenance practices. A failure by a homeowner to follow these obligations, schedules, and practices may subject the homeowner to the affirmative defenses.A builder, under the principles of comparative fault pertaining to affirmative defenses, may be excused, in whole or in part, from any obligation, damage, loss, or liability if the builder can demonstrate any of the following affirmative defenses in response to a claimed violation:


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Licensing
    Guidelines Anaheim California

    Commercial and Residential Contractors License Required.


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Building Industry Association Southern California - Desert Chapter
    Local # 0532
    77570 Springfield Ln Ste E
    Palm Desert, CA 92211
    http://www.desertchapter.com

    Building Industry Association Southern California - Riverside County Chapter
    Local # 0532
    3891 11th St Ste 312
    Riverside, CA 92501


    Building Industry Association Southern California
    Local # 0532
    17744 Sky Park Circle Suite 170
    Irvine, CA 92614
    http://www.biasc.org

    Building Industry Association Southern California - Orange County Chapter
    Local # 0532
    17744 Skypark Cir Ste 170
    Irvine, CA 92614
    http://www.biaoc.com

    Building Industry Association Southern California - Baldy View Chapter
    Local # 0532
    8711 Monroe Ct Ste B
    Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
    http://www.biabuild.com

    Building Industry Association Southern California - LA/Ventura Chapter
    Local # 0532
    28460 Ave Stanford Ste 240
    Santa Clarita, CA 91355


    Building Industry Association Southern California - Building Industry Association of S Ca Antelope Valley
    Local # 0532
    44404 16th St W Suite 107
    Lancaster, CA 93535



    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Anaheim California

    U.K. Construction Unexpectedly Strengthens for a Second Month

    Alleged Damage to Personal Property Does Not Revive Coverage for Construction Defects

    #7 CDJ Topic: Truck Ins. Exchange v. O'Mailia

    Connecticut Gets Medieval All Over Construction Defects

    No Collapse Coverage Where Policy's Collapse Provisions Deleted

    Housing Starts Rebound in U.S. as Inflation Eases: Economy

    Pending Home Sales in U.S. Increase Less Than Forecast

    Spotting Problem Projects

    Buffett Says ‘No-Brainer’ to Get a Mortgage to Short Rates

    Question of Parties' Intent Prevents Summary Judgment for Insurer

    Two Texas Cities Top San Francisco for Property Investors

    Damage to Plaintiffs' Home Caused By Unmoored Boats Survives Surface Water Exclusion

    Former UN General Assembly President Charged in Bribe Scheme

    New Jersey Supreme Court Ruled Condo Association Can’t Reset Clock on Construction Defect Claim

    Save a Legal Fee: Prevent Costly Lawsuits With Claim Limitation Clauses

    Ensuing Loss Provision Does Not Salvage Coverage

    Rise in Single-Family Construction Anticipated in Michigan

    In Florida, Exculpatory Clauses Do Not Need Express Language Referring to the Exculpated Party's Negligence

    Home Sales Topping $100 Million Smash U.S. Price Records

    Policy's Limitation Period for Seeking Replacement Costs Not Enforced Where Unreasonable

    Nevada Supreme Court to Decide Fate of Harmon Towers

    Handling Construction Defect Claims – New Edition Released

    Sixth Circuit Finds No Coverage for Faulty Workmanship Under Kentucky Law

    Is It Time to Revisit Construction Defects in Kentucky?

    Blackstone Said in $1.7 Billion Deal to Buy Apartments

    Appraisal Process Analyzed

    Subcontractor Exception to Your Work Exclusion Paves the Way for Coverage

    NY Attorney General to Propose Bill Requiring Climate Adaptation for Utilities

    Alaska Supreme Court Dismisses Claims of Uncooperative Pro Se Litigant in Defect Case

    Contractor May Be Barred Until Construction Lawsuit Settled

    Benefits and Pitfalls of Partnerships Between Companies

    Home Prices Rose in Fewer U.S. Markets in Fourth Quarter

    Municipalities Owe a Duty to Pedestrians Regardless of Whether a Sidewalk Presents an “Open and Obvious” Hazardous Condition. (WA)

    The Year 2010 In Review: Design And Construction Defects Litigation

    Housing Markets Continue to Improve

    Faulty Workmanship an Occurrence in Iowa – as Long as Other Property Damage is Involved

    Napa Quake, Flooding Cost $4 Billion in U.S. in August

    “Other Insurance” and Indemnity Provisions Determine Which Insurer Must Cover

    Product Liability Alert: “Sophisticated User” Defense Not Available by Showing Existence of a “Sophisticated Intermediary”

    Firm Announces Remediation of Defective Drywall

    Consult with Counsel when Preparing Construction Liens

    Tightest Credit Market in 16 Years Rejects Bernanke’s Bid

    Ten Firm Members Recognized as Super Lawyers or Rising Stars

    Focusing on Design Elements of the 2014 World Cup Stadiums

    Architect Blamed for Crumbling Public School Playground

    Home Sales Going to Investors in Daytona Beach Area

    Labor Code § 2708 Presumption of Employer Negligence is Not Applicable Against Homeowners Who Hired Unlicensed Painting Company

    Defend Trade Secret Act of 2016–-Federalizing Trade Secret Law

    Designers George Yabu and Glenn Pushelberg Discuss One57’s Ultra-Luxury Park Hyatt

    Trial Date Discussed for Las Vegas HOA Takeover Case
    Corporate Profile

    ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    Drawing from more than four thousand construction and design related expert witness designations, the Anaheim, California Construction Expert Directory delivers a superior construction and design expert support solution to builders, risk managers, and construction practice groups seeking effective resolution of construction defect, scheduling, and delay claims. BHA provides construction claims investigation and expert services to the nation's most recognized construction practice groups, Fortune 500 builders, CGL carriers, owners, as well as a variety of public entities. In connection with in house assets which include registered architects, professional engineers, licensed general and specialty contractors, the firm brings national experience and local capabilities to Anaheim region.

    Anaheim California construction project management expert witnessesAnaheim California soil failure expert witnessAnaheim California civil engineering expert witnessAnaheim California expert witness commercial buildingsAnaheim California construction expert testimonyAnaheim California architecture expert witnessAnaheim California expert witness windows
    Construction Expert Witness News & Info
    Anaheim, California

    Under Colorado House Bill 17-1279, HOA Boards Now Must Get Members’ Informed Consent Before Bringing A Construction Defect Action

    April 11, 2018 —
    Last year, I wrote a post calling attention to stalled efforts in the Colorado legislature to pass meaningful construction defect reform. Shortly thereafter, the legislature got it done in the form of House Bill 17-1279. This bill creates an important pre-litigation notice-and-approval process whenever an HOA initiates a construction defect action in its own name or on behalf of two or more of its members. Before May 2017, the pre-litigation requirements that an HOA had to fulfill before bringing a construction defect claim under the Colorado Construction Defect Action Reform Act (“CDARA”) were generally minor. For example, while many declarations required majority approval from the community prior to initiation of claims, in practice, what the industry was seeing is that some HOAs were making it so that only a majority of the HOA Board had to approve bringing the claim, rather than the majority of interested unit owners. It was also common that, even where the majority of owners were involved, they were often voting in favor of filing a lawsuit or arbitration without fully understanding the risks and costs. This practice presented a risk to developers—it is easier to get approval from a small group than from a larger group, and it is easier to get approval when the voting owners do not fully appreciate the risks and costs inherent in filing a claim. Colorado House Bill 17-1279, which was signed into law by Governor Hickenlooper in May 2017 and is codified at C.R.S. § 38-33.3-303.5, lessens these risks by amending the Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act (“CCIOA”) to add certain pre-litigation requirements. Section 38-33.3-303.5 applies any time an HOA institutes a construction defect action its own name on behalf of itself or two or more unit owners on matters affecting the common interest community. C.R.S. §§ 38-33.3-302(1)(d), -303.5(1)(a). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Luke Mecklenburg, Snell & Wilmer
    Mr. Mecklenburg may be contacted at lmecklenburg@swlaw.com

    Insurer Must Pay To Defend Product Defect Claims From Date Of Product Installation

    January 31, 2018 —
    An Iowa federal court recently ruled that an insurer must pay its policyholder’s defense costs from the date of installation of the allegedly faulty product, even though the underlying suits failed to allege when damage purportedly occurred. The ruling opens the door under each of the policyholder’s successive liability policies from 2000 to 2008, allowing the policyholder to recover millions of dollars in defense costs. The policyholder sought summary judgment concerning the date(s) on which the insurer’s defense obligation was triggered by fourteen of the fifteen claims asserted against it. The policyholder argued that the duty attached from the moment property damage potentially occurred, meaning the time when the underlying claimant installed or potentially could have installed the windows at issue in the underlying claims. The policyholder cited to the following evidence to support its claim: actual dates of installation (where available), dates of delivery, purchase or manufacture of the windows; and policy period referenced in the insurer’s claims notes as being potentially implicated by the claim. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton & Williams and Brittany M. Davidson, Hunton & Williams Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@hunton.com Ms. Davidson may be contacted at davidsonb@hunton.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    The Right to Repair Act (Civ.C §895 et seq.) Applies and is the Exclusive Remedy for a Homeowner Alleging Construction Defects

    February 07, 2018 —
    McMillin Albany LLC v. Superior Court (01.18.18) ____ Cal.4th _____ (2018 WL 456728) The California Supreme Court confirmed that the Right to Repair Act (CA Civil Code § 895, et seq. and often referred to by its legislative nomenclature as “SB800”) applies broadly to any action by a residential owner seeking recovery of damages for construction defects, regardless of whether such defects caused property damages or only economic losses. This includes the right in the Act of the builder to attempt repairs prior to the owner filing a lawsuit. Background Homeowners sued builder for construction defects. Included in their causes of action was a cause of action for violation of the Right To Repair Act. The Act requires that before filing litigation, a homeowner must give the builder notice and engage in a nonadversarial prelitigation process which gives the builder a right to repair the defects. The builder asked the court to stay the homeowners’ action so the prelitigaiton process could be undertaken. Rather than give the builder the repair right, the homeowners dismissed the particular cause of action from their case, leaving only other so-called common law and warranty causes of action. The common law claims sought recovery for property damage caused by the defects. The builder nonetheless asked to the Court to stay the action so it could exercise its right to repair. The trial court, relying on Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove LLC (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 98, denied builder’s request to stay the action. The Liberty Mutual Court concluded that certain common law construction defect claims fell outside the purview of the Act. Builder appealed. The Court of Appeal disagreed with Liberty Mutual, so did not follow it, granted the builder’s request for a stay, and directed that the homeowners afford the builder the right to repair the claimed defects as provided under the Act. The California Supreme Court affirmed, disapproving Liberty Mutual and the subsequent cases relying on it. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Craig Wallace, Smith Currie
    Mr. Wallace may be contacted at swwallace@smithcurrie.com

    In a Win for Design Professionals, California Court of Appeals Holds That Relation-Back Doctrine Does Not Apply to Certificate of Merit Law

    December 20, 2017 —
    The year was 1995. The old guard was still in power in Sacramento. “Button-Down” Pete Wilson was Governor. Willie Brown, the self-nicknamed “Ayatollah of the Assembly,” was Speaker of the Assembly. And Bill “Huggy” Lockyer was Senate Pro Tem. Names that, for many reasons as of late, seem . . . well . . . let’s just say, “quaint.” Their time, however, was coming to an end. Three years earlier, California voters approved Proposition 140, which instituted term limits for the first time in California. And by 1996, the first slate of legislators would be “termed out.” The immediate impact: It was the time for making deals because you didn’t know who would be keeping house next. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel, Rosen, Black, Dean LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

    Edinburg School Inspections Uncovered Structural Construction Defects

    April 11, 2018 —
    Yesterday, the Herald reported that six schools and a nursery have been affected by construction defects in Edinburg. For every eight properties inspected by council, one was found to share analogous issues which caused “a wall to collapse at a city primary school in 2016.” Furthermore, over the course of eighteen months, inspectors will observe more buildings across Edinburg in order to guarantee their “structural safety.” At Oxgangs Primary School, during Storm Gertrude in January 2016, nine tons of masonry fell from the side of a building. The Herald reported 17 other schools across Edinburg closed due to safety concerns. All schools closed were part of the “same private finance initiative.” Moreover, there have been 20 other examples of defects found that are alike, in which checks were “carried out at public buildings.” Christine Jardine, a Scottish Liberal democrat who represents Edinburg West, states that the findings were “scandalous,” and “simply not good enough.” In addition, Jardine points out that the council is responsible for buildings to meet the highest of standards, and proper checks are necessary, in order to ensure the safety of their children. Lastly, Jardine suggests that the Scottish government should no longer rely on the funding from local authority. Instead, she proposes that the government must be accountable for “improving council funding.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    The Evolution of Construction Defect Trends at West Coast Casualty Seminar

    May 03, 2018 —
    Twenty-five years ago. 1993. On January 23rd, Bill Clinton was sworn in as the 42nd President of the United States. The average cost of a gallon of gasoline was $1.16, a movie ticket cost $4.00, and the average cost of a new home was $113,200.00. 1993 also marked the first of what would be a quarter century of annual seminars hosted by West Coast Casualty Service, and provided to the combined professionals within the construction defect community. As the seminar has grown both in attendance and prominence within this community under the watchful stewardship of David and Coral Stern, much has changed both with regard to the content of the seminar and the climate within which it was presented. A quick look at the topics addressed over the past 25 years of the Construction Defect Seminar provides one with a veritable history of construction defect litigation and insurance coverage trends across the United States and beyond. While the first seminar was hosted in 1993, my first attendance didn’t occur until 1999, and the first time I was honored to be a panelist would have to wait until 2007. In the subsequent years, I’ve had the opportunity to sit on panels an additional three times, and each one I gained rare and valuable insights into the construction defect community, its willingness to challenge itself, and the amazing professionals we all have the distinct pleasure of working with every day (and whom we sometimes take too much for granted). In the mid to late 90’s, topics at the seminar included such subjects as the Montrose Chemical Corp v. Superior Court decision (Montrose) regarding a carrier’s duty to defend and the subsequent Stonewall Insurance case that examined the duty to indemnify in the context of construction defect claims. The California Calderon Act of 1997, laying out the roadmap for HOA’s filing construction defect lawsuits was also a topic of discussion and debate within the West Coast “arena.” The new millennium saw the landmark Aas v. William Lyon decision, which disallowed negligence claims for construction defects in the absence of actual resultant damage. This was followed by Presley Homes v. American States Insurance wherein the court ruled that a duty to defend applies where there is mere potential for coverage and the duty to defend applies to the entire action. Each of these bellwether decisions was addressed contemporaneously by panels at the West Coast seminar, contemporaneously bringing additional dialog to the CD community, from within the community. 2002 brought what has become the defining legislation in California regarding construction defect litigation and a builder’s right to repair. Senate Bill 800 (SB800), and its subsequent codification as Title 7, Part 2 of Division 2 of the California Civil Code, Sections 895 through 945.5 would become the defining framework for similar legislation across the United States. During the course of its drafting, movement through the legislature, and final adoption in January of 1993, many of the questions raised and debated in committees in Sacramento, had already been and were continuing to be addressed by panelists at the West Coast Seminar. How does SB800 work with Calderon? How does it affect the prior Aas decision? What now constitutes a defect, and what are timeframes established within the complex pre-litigation process? Open the pages of the 2002 – 2004 seminar invitations and you’ll see panels comprised of the finest members of the insurance law and coverage communities addressing those very questions (and more)! As the first decade of the new century drew to a close, a brief review of the WCC invitations from that period suggests a trend towards programmatic analyses of key themes selected for the seminar. In 2008, my second opportunity as a guest speaker, topics included a review of the state of construction defect litigation in a post-SB 800 environment. Panelists offered retrospective insight into the state of right to repair statutes in multiple states, while others offered a glimpse at where the industry might be headed, as similar legislation was enacted across the country. As always, pertinent court decisions bearing on construction defect, both in California, and elsewhere were given unique perspective and additional clarity by multiple panels of gifted speakers. In 2009, claims and coverage were examined from multiple unique perspectives, including that of plaintiff, the policyholder, and the insurer. Wrap policies and the gaps in due to self-insured retention obligations were examined. As we rapidly approach the end of the second decade of the 21st Century, West Coast Casualty’s Construction Defect Seminar continues to lead the construction defect community as the premier source for information and peer dialog on all matters relating to construction law, coverage, and emerging trends. In 2017, the Seminar tackled such broad subjects as the role of women in the construction industry, claims management, and risk management, challenges raised by wrap versus non-wrap litigation, and the emergent trend of apartment to condo conversions (and the attendant coverage challenges). This month, beginning on May 16th at the Disneyland Resort, in Anaheim California, America’s largest Construction Defect event kicks off its 25th Anniversary celebration. As has been every year since 1993, the seminar invitation promises insurance, legal, and industry professionals an exciting and informative array of salient and timely panel topics, as well as a stellar faculty of gifted panelists. If this year’s seminar is anything like the past 25 years, this edition of West Coast Casualty’s Construction Defect Seminar will not only be informative and educational, but also a promise for another 25 years of peerless service to the construction defect community. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Does a Contractor (or Subcontractor) Have to Complete its Work to File a Mechanics Lien

    January 10, 2018 —
    Yes. There seems to be common misconception that a contractor, subcontractor, or supplier, has six months from its last day of work on the project to file a mechanics lien. I frequently see mechanics liens whereby the claimant states “Claimants last day of work on the project was X.” However, Section 1502 (49 P.S. Section 1502) of the Pennsylvania Mechanics Lien is clear that a lien must be filed within six month of “the completion of his work.” Under the Lien Law, “completion of the work” is a defined term and means “means performance of the last of the labor or delivery of the last of the materials required by the terms of the claimant’s contract or agreement, whichever last occurs.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLC
    Mr. Zimolong may be contacted at wally@zimolonglaw.com

    Triggering Duty to Advance Costs Same Standard as Duty to Defend

    April 11, 2018 —
    Interpreting Hawaii law, the federal district court held that the standard for triggering the duty to defend is the same as the standard for the duty to advance costs under a D&O policy. Maui Land & Pineapple Co. v. Liberty Ins. Underwriters, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56949 (D. Haw. April 3, 2018). The underlying plaintiffs sued 22 defendants, including Maui Land Pineapple (MLP) and Ryan L. Churchill, concerning a residential development project known as The Ritz-Carlton Club & Residences. The underlying complaint alleged that MLP "directly or indirectly through wholly owned subsidiaries exerts control" over Kapalua Bay, LLC, the defendant in the underlying lawsuit. Kapalua Bay, LLC was created as a joint venture of which MLP held 51%. Churchill was a senior executive officer of MLP, President of Kapalua Bay, and an executive officer of Kapalua Realty, which participated in all aspects of the Project, such as financing, development, and construction. In their second amended complaint, the underlying plaintiffs alleged nine Counts against the defendants, including breach of fiduciary duty. It was alleged that defendants were not transparent and kept owners in the dark regarding the status of the project. Several allegations named Churchill individually and described his alleged material misrepresentations to the underlying plaintiffs regarding the project's financing. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com